A coup/junta is a brutal way to take over a country, BUT

[SoCalDem]

one thing that's pretty much guaranteed is this..

The ones who WERE in charge must flee or perish.. They are usually never heard from again in any meaningful way.

In our current system, we have perpetual "hangovers", because the "formers" now never leave. They get un-elected, and then immediately recycle themselves into pundit, lobbyist, pollster, think tank essayist, talk radio host, etc. They simply MUST have us know their every thought about how awful the "new" people are doing.

The presidency has term limits,, many governorships have term limits. There's a reason for this.. WE ARE FED UP WITH THEM AND WANT THEM TO GO AWAY.. We do not want them to proffer their brothers, sons, wives, cousins, etc... and we do not want them on tv/radio.

We have 300+ million people in this nation, and surely there are plenty of new people with new ideas..

I want my ex presidents/senators/congress people planted on golf courses or back wherever the hell they came from, doing something else.. I do NOT want them on my tv, telling me how terrible things are because they are no longer there, and how awful the new person is.

I'm no anarchist and I do not advocate forceful removals, but I would surely love it if we could somehow be rid of these people permanently when they leave office..

I do not want Jeb
I do not want Hillary
I do not even want Joe Biden

I would love a younger person who grew up with technology and who understands nuance

Our world is changing at an alarming pace, and I think we need someone who can think outside the box, and who is willing and able to nimbly run the gauntlet we have ahead of us..

I know that older people (I am one) have things of value to offer, but.....

[sabrina 1]

1. Our system is broken, at least as far as the people are concerned. Royalty

is a system where you cannot get rid of those you don't want anymore. We were supposed to make sure that when the people threw them out, they WERE out.

But our system resembles royalty more and more. We seem to have two families to choose from, the Bushes or the Clintons.

The only way to change that is to tell them 'we will not vote for you', NOW before the party decides to once again, give us no other choice.

Maybe instead of telling them 'we don't want them but if they are the only choice, we will hold our noses and vote', we tell them 'if you want to win, do not give us that candidate or you are going to lose'.

It is the people's fault. Why on earth would they stop doing what they are doing when it WORKS for them?

We don't need a revolution, we need voters who demand that their party respond to them by refusing to rubber stamp their choices for us.

[Control-Z]

2. You're going to have to wait a while for

someone who grew up with technology. The oldest (that did grow up with the technology I believe you are talking about) would only be about 30 years old at this point.

[SoCalDem]

4. True, but if they are in their early 40's, they were young enough

to easily adapt when they were introduced to it..

People my age (65) did not even get a computer until we were well into adulthood, and many are still "afraid" of it..

[tblue]

3. I'll take Senators Warren and Sanders.

Age doesn't matter to me. Values, priorities, integrity, vision, courage, compassion--that's what I want in all 3 branches of govt. Older people can have those and plenty of younguns don't. It's not age that determines these things. (I know you already know this.) I would do anything for a Warren/Sanders ticket or vice versa. I'm open to young candidates but I wouldn't assume they're preferable just because of their age.

[SoCalDem]

6. Warren is a special case, because she comes from academia

and has always had one foot in young & restless and the other one in calm down & listen...

Bernie is great, but once you call yourself a socialist, you are pretty limited.. Remember, we have a LOT of nuance-free numbskulls in our country

[True Blue Door]

5. Most of the people in office WERE elected, duly and legitimately.

We just have to get them to do their job.

[SoCalDem]

8. Some dogs don't hunt

[True Blue Door]

10. Then hire new ones.

[rhett o rick]

20. I disagree. With gerrymandering and massive voter disenfranchisement, and corruptible vote counting

machines, you can not say that anyone was elected legitimately. The voting system is broken.

[sendero]

7. As long as the 1% control everything..

.... you'll get who they want you to get.

We thought we were getting a lot of what you claim to want with Obama, look how that turned out. He works for the 1%, it couldn't be more obvious.

You might as well wish for flying unicorns shitting Skittles all over the place. Regaining control of our government to benefit the masses rather than the 1% is very unlikely to happen in our lifetime I'm sorry to say.

And when it does happen it will be at a very high cost, these oligarchs are not going to give up power easily.

I realize that many or most people reading this will consider is pessimistic or hyperbole. Just wait 10 years and get back to me.

[SoCalDem]

9. I am quite content to be in Act IV of my life

But I do worry about my children, so I hope things can settle down, for their sakes..

[sendero]

13. I'm also a geriatric...

... with 2 kids in college. Yeah, I'm worried about them not me so much.

Kids growing up now have to deal with exorbitant college costs, iffy job prospects, I really feel bad for them.

[brooklynite]

11. John Quincy Adams...

Franklin Delano Roosevelt...
Robert Kennedy...
Teddy Kennedy...

Amazing how "We do not want them to proffer their brothers, sons, wives, cousins, etc" vanishes as long as it's someone we like.

You don't think someone's relative should be in public office? Don't vote for them.

And btw: UNREC for even suggesting a "coup/junta"

[SoCalDem]

15. About proffering...

John Adams died at age 90+ in 1826, so I doubt that he was doing a lot of proffering for his son Q who was first elected in 1825

TR died in 1919...FDR was first elected in 1933..no proffering there

Bobby Kennedy was never proffered since his bother died 5 years earlier..

I object to the active hawking of relatives..

The ones you named were independently worthy, and not being sold to us as "the next"...

forgot about Teddy.. He grew into his part, but initially probably did not deserve to hold office. Chappaquidick and his pique-ish run for presidency on 1980 pretty much defined his qualifications. He was content to be a senator, and was a good one.

Rec...unrec.. means nothing to me..

[brooklynite]

16. and Hillary Clinton isn't independently worthy?

Former US Senator

Former Secretary of State?

Don't like her? Don't vote for her. But don't cheapen her.

FWIW: I'd hate to have Jeb as President, but he accomplished a lot more as Gov of Florida than his brother did, and is also arguably "worthy"

[SoCalDem]

18. I have nothing against her, but does anyone really think

she would have become senator of NY without BC????

and no senatorial thing, no Sec of state

SHE should have been gov of Arkansas, but back then (and in the south especially) a Northerner woman transplant would have never been acceptable..

Don't get me wrong.. I will vote for her if she is the candidate,, she is just not the person I think we really need..

and Jeb.. He "accomplished " a lot, but much of it was toxic..

[nichomachus]

12. The problem is not the person in the White House

The problem is The System.

Until we change The System, nothing else will change.

To get into the White House, you have to have access to $2,000,000,000. You don't get that from bake sales and donations from people like you and me. You get it from giant corporations, PACs, etc. Once you take their money, they own you. If you refuse to take their money, they will give it to your opponent and smear you into paste.

Until we get money out of politics, nothing will change.

[Ykcutnek]

21. This. nt

[madokie]

14. Yup

[bigwillq]

17. It really doesn't matter if it's Jeb, Joe or Hillary

Our country is controlled by money, power and greed. It's hard to defeat that combination.

[CJCRANE]

19. We need to go toward a more direct, participatory democracy.

Representative democracy in the western world is in its last throes. Elected politicians don't listen to us and the corporate media doesn't inform us or represent our views.

We have to turn off the corporate media and act en masse for them to hear us, whether by protests, demonstrations, marches, consumer boycotts, letters, emails, phone campaigns etc. etc.

[stevenleser]

22. I think the approach has to be to win the battle of ideas, not concentrate on individual leaders

There is no way in a Democracy and or free society to tell people they must "Go away". Even in the extreme instances of coups or such and dictatorships, the deposed or exiled former leaders sometimes come back after a time. Sometimes after as little as a year. Coups and revolutions tend to foment counter-coups and counter-revolutions and long term instability.

I also don't think you can say "We are fed up and don't want them on TV/radio", etc. If people are willing to watch and entities are willing to pay for ad time, they are going to be on TV or radio.

Even if you "take money out of politics" as another commenter says is needed, and I agree, that doesn't include TV and radio stations and personalities and it certainly can't control/prevent people from setting up internet blogs and video channels.

The way to do this is to win the battle of ideas and support those who are most able to implement them or as close a version of them as possible and fight to keep moving the needle even if that movement is minimal in the short term.

[Odin2005]

23. Presidents have term limits because of Republican hatred of FDR

Other than that I am in complete agreement.